Politics, Religion & SocietyTopics pertaining to politics, religion, philosophy, and social issues. Not for the faint of heart. Also, do not post while drunk, suffering from food poisoning, or while on a low carb diet. You have been warned.

It raises the question, "If women are morally superior, with whom are all the straight philandering men doin' the deed?"

I know this - after 20 years of querying rooms full of people, I've seen there's a huge overlap of the sets of cheaters and cheatees. Still don't know why. It's like cheating is just in the air they breathe, and it isn't for other folks. Or the uncheated are actually just unconscious ...

__________________ "I am not more than a lossy Human being, and think that we all are equals..." - Wasted Engineer

The article is operating one some false premises. For example, one of the First Ladies was known to have had a mistress living in the White House - it just wasn't spoken about. People didn't normally used to care whether men [and women] had affairs so long as they were discreet and no one was hurt in the process [Like Julia Howe].

The difference is that in the past it was understood by everyone that these were private matters not discussed or used against public figures as long as they took reasonable pains to be discreet about their affairs. The rules have changed, and again, everyone knows that.

So under today's circumstances, when private matters are not off-limits for scandal and can easily destroy political careers, the stakes for discovery are very very high. And yet men keep engaging in high-risk behavior that may destroy a career that they value. It's hardly unsuprising that people ask "Why? Why did you do that?"

"To get laid" is not much of an answer and I don't buy it as a simple matter of a horny guy forgetting he's trying to become president of the United States and then saying, "oops." Instead, I think that the emotional gratification that comes from sexual prowess and conquests, from the perception of being a powerful man, is like a drug. As the pressure to succeed grows, as the expectations become more and more demanding, the men need something to bolster themselves, to buffer them from fears of failure and insecurity and not being man enough to win.

In the game they're playing, they NEED the sex to feel good about themselves, to re-stock their self-confidence. And ironcially, that need can be their undoing as well.

__________________"Don't post dickishly if you can't take the pushback, cupcake." -- Roxy Couturier

"Except of course, there will never come a time when we don't need more shoes." -- Cocoanut Koala

Is it? The point has been raised here that men's (alleged) "stupidity" stems from the power of their reptile brain - the same brain that makes them more predatory than women. The same predation that leads them to rape and abuse more than women.

I think there's a legit connection, myself.

I perhaps should have been more clear. I meant that this thread isn't specifically about that. I just didn't want to go on that tangent, as it has been discussed so many times.

The difference is that in the past it was understood by everyone that these were private matters not discussed or used against public figures as long as they took reasonable pains to be discreet about their affairs. The rules have changed, and again, everyone knows that.

So under today's circumstances, when private matters are not off-limits for scandal and can easily destroy political careers, the stakes for discovery are very very high. And yet men keep engaging in high-risk behavior that may destroy a career that they value. It's hardly unsuprising that people ask "Why? Why did you do that?"

"To get laid" is not much of an answer and I don't buy it as a simple matter of a horny guy forgetting he's trying to become president of the United States and then saying, "oops." Instead, I think that the emotional gratification that comes from sexual prowess and conquests, from the perception of being a powerful man, is like a drug. As the pressure to succeed grows, as the expectations become more and more demanding, the men need something to bolster themselves, to buffer them from fears of failure and insecurity and not being man enough to win.

In the game they're playing, they NEED the sex to feel good about themselves, to re-stock their self-confidence. And ironcially, that need can be their undoing as well.

I agree with you to a certain extent. I do think it's much more complex psychologically than just wanting to get laid. Human beings are hardly that simple. We are very complex creatures (well, most of us ).

These people know they are risking everything. Maybe it's the thrill of the danger? I don't know. Maybe they don't even know, themselves. I just don't think we can reduce it to simple biological urges.

But what I've been struggling with here is how any politician worth his salt can believe he's going to get away with it. How can he not realize, if he is successful and in a position of any sort of power, that he is a target for his opponents who would love any excuse to tear him down? It's a story that's as old as civilization, for crying out loud! Yet, they seem to practically hand the whip to their opponents, turn around, and say "go for it."

Because their opponents all have baggage in their closets as well. If it's not sexual, it's usually financial. When they're all in the same boat, people are less likely to rock it - and the way the system works, more often than not it would be career suicide & endless hassles to do so regardless.

The difference is that in the past it was understood by everyone that these were private matters not discussed or used against public figures as long as they took reasonable pains to be discreet about their affairs. The rules have changed, and again, everyone knows that.

The problem is, the article is misleading in that they say that no one knew Kennedy had affairs - except everyone did. It might not have been out in the open, but it wasn't really a secret.

Also, when women politicians/etc do this stuff it's less likely to be reported in the news, I suspect. The Center For Disease Control official who was arrested not long ago would make just as good an example as Edwards or the Secret Service agents, but how many people have ever heard about it? Or that she was back on the job in a matter of weeks?

Also, when women politicians/etc do this stuff it's less likely to be reported in the news, I suspect. The Center For Disease Control official who was arrested not long ago would make just as good an example as Edwards or the Secret Service agents, but how many people have ever heard about it? Or that she was back on the job in a matter of weeks?

I think that's very different. In fact it's not even remotely similar. Lindsey's crime, and it certainly is a crime, allegedly involved a young child. Edwards' problem involved getting his mistress pregnant while he was married to his wife. It is not good for a married man to get his mistress pregnant, of course. It does not approach the level of horror of molesting a child. That's not really an issue of impulse control, I'd think.

But on the subject of female politicians and infidelity, the only case that comss to mind is the allegations against Nikki Haley when she was running for governor of South Carolina, made by two men who claimednto have had affairs with her. She went on to win the election, and I get the impression that few people found the allegations credible.

Of course, for some reason Catharine the Great comes to mind....

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ava Glasgow

But I cannot take your arguments seriously when you back them up with links to ridiculously bad information. It's not bad because I disagree with it, it's bad because it really is bad. These sites demonstrate zero knowledge of the science they are discussing, they link almost exclusively to other non-information, and when they DO link to an authoritative source, they misrepresent what the source actually says.

I debated asking this in "Ask Christano anything" or here. I chose here. I think that sometimes answering a question with a question answers the first question, while not answering the second question. So answer the second question.

Powerful people act on their present impulses without giving much thought to the consequences because they usually they have a history of getting out of any bad situation with a combination of money/charm/influence/privilege. If it's worked a hundred times before, why wouldn't it continue working?

For powerless people, they often act on impulse because they are resigned to believing that tomorrow will be just as rotten as today. When one has come to accept that one has no future prospects, what is left but living in the moment?

I perhaps should have been more clear. I meant that this thread isn't specifically about that. I just didn't want to go on that tangent, as it has been discussed so many times.

I understand that. But I was getting impatient with the feeling in this thread that there was some kind of moral equivalence between men's power-seeking ambition in seeking sex and women's need for love, acceptance, or protection.

To highlight why I disagreed, I pointed to rape as an extreme example. It's most often something men do, not women. And by pointing out the extremes (as I said), we can better understand the middle.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

In the game they're playing, they NEED the sex to feel good about themselves, to re-stock their self-confidence. And ironcially, that need can be their undoing as well.

Just look at the animal world. With animals that live in groups the alpha males get the (most) females to reproduce with. The only reason to try and become an alpha male in the first place.
It is all still in the human genes.
We advance faster cultural and moral whise than genetic.

These people know they are risking everything. Maybe it's the thrill of the danger? I don't know. Maybe they don't even know, themselves. I just don't think we can reduce it to simple biological urges.

The reward for the thrill of danger itself is a biological urge for endorphines in the brain.
Or, if you want it worded differently: Without biological urges and instinct, you'd get Spock. Any kind of thrillseeking, indulging in pleasures, the thrill of power, sex, getting territory, securing your home and income, finding partners .. the good feelings you get are all biological rewards for doing the 'right stuff'. Which isn't necessarily the right stuff socially in all of those cases and situations.

__________________"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" - George Carlin

The reward for the thrill of danger itself is a biological urge for endorphines in the brain.
Or, if you want it worded differently: Without biological urges and instinct, you'd get Spock. Any kind of thrillseeking, indulging in pleasures, the thrill of power, sex, getting territory, securing your home and income, finding partners .. the good feelings you get are all biological rewards for doing the 'right stuff'. Which isn't necessarily the right stuff socially in all of those cases and situations.

Without biological urges and instinct, you'd get Spock. Any kind of thrillseeking, indulging in pleasures, the thrill of power, sex, getting territory, securing your home and income, finding partners .. the good feelings you get are all biological rewards for doing the 'right stuff'. Which isn't necessarily the right stuff socially in all of those cases and situations.

Mother Nature has no interest in morality or ethics, just in results. Did you spawn viable offspring? The twist for humans (and other pack animals) is that the "you" is not necessarily the individual. Our survival strategy broadened to "Did your group spawn viable offspring?"

So we have this potential conflict of interest between what the individual wants and what the group wants. The whole weight of current cultural norms gets slammed down over us and some individuals fit the ideal model of a group member better than others. The worse the fit, the more difficult it is to moderate your behavior.

Speaking as a gay person, it's not easy to completely subordinate our own emotional/erotic fulfillment because what we want doesn't please society. Some of us come out despite the "self-destructive" fallout from society that wrecks careers and estranges us from family. I'm fortunate to live in an era when that external pressure is loosening up a bit.

Conversely, this is an era when powerful men are losing the societal approval for "womanizing", a behavior they used to indulge with impunity. Why would stifling that drive be any easier for them than it is for me?

There are a lot of women in recovery programs for sexual addiction, most of them abuse survivors but not all. But I venture to guess that more of those women see themselves as relationship addicts rather than sex addicts. This is why there are two distinct self-help groups: "Sex Addicts Anonymous" (SAA) and "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous" (SLAA).

And the motivators for sexual addiction are remarkably similar for both genders: use of sex to mask emotional pain, compulsivity in seeking new and riskier thrills with random partners, a recurring pattern of unfulfillment, etc. I'm not sure whether men in general add more of a power-seeking behavior than women but I'm prone to believing they do.

Aliselia's links (both to the same study) are fascinating and I want to spend some time digesting what they say. In the Twelve Steps community, addiction to power and risk are just as common as addiction to sex/relationships.

Men in the past never had to try to that hard to cover their tracks, because they covered for each other. They also do not have to try super hard to cover their tracks because women in general will forgive them. Even if a woman did not forgive in the past, what difference does it make? She does not have the money or power to give her options.

In addition, the 24 hour new cycle has ruined the world. We know about everything, even all the stuff that does not matter.

Men aren't stupid, they are just spoiled from centuries of getting away with whatever they want.

There are a lot of women in recovery programs for sexual addiction, most of them abuse survivors but not all. But I venture to guess that more of those women see themselves as relationship addicts rather than sex addicts. This is why there are two distinct self-help groups: "Sex Addicts Anonymous" (SAA) and "Sex and Love Addicts Anonymous" (SLAA).

And the motivators for sexual addiction are remarkably similar for both genders: use of sex to mask emotional pain, compulsivity in seeking new and riskier thrills with random partners, a recurring pattern of unfulfillment, etc. I'm not sure whether men in general add more of a power-seeking behavior than women but I'm prone to believing they do.

Aliselia's links (both to the same study) are fascinating and I want to spend some time digesting what they say. In the Twelve Steps community, addiction to power and risk are just as common as addiction to sex/relationships.

I spent some time looking on Google, and anything remotely scientific in nature referred back to that same study. Apparently there hasn't been much scholarly study of this subject.